Did Pelosi Committ a felony?

[loosecannon]

]Her trip was unethical, period.

again an unsubstantiated and moonbat opinion.


And one can only marvel at the fact you think ANYONE would envy an unethical, shrewish bitch who would have been forced out by her own party if she was a Republican for all of her chicanery.


Ah your hated shines. You are just looking for excuses to justify it. You are suffering from power envy.

But forced out of her party for chicanery if she was a GOPer? Hillarious.

The GOP hasn't had that kind of morality since it was prepared to impeach Nixon. The GOP is based on chicanery, like this thread topic.

Pure bullshit contrived to swiftboat another person serving their nation.

Ethics shine light on the deep corruption of the GOP.

You hate Pelosi for her ethics.

[glockmail]

1. Which makes me wonder why you're so obsessed with keeping the hype alive.
2. She wasn't.
3. .....

1. I'm obsessed with shining the harsh light of truth on Liberalism.
2. Then what was she doing, sightseeing?
3. Your insult indicates that you have lost the argument.

[typomaniac]

You don't argue; you just talk out the wrong orifice with the help of a keyboard.

[Birdzeye]

Some comparison. Gingrich echoed stated, factual US foreign policy to which the Clinton Administration backpeddaled on after the fact?

Surely you can do better than comparing apples and oranges?


Gingrich responded to the Taiwan comment stating, “What I said in China was U.S. policy.” But Wallace quickly refuted him: “Not according to the Clinton administration.” Gingrich then attempted to defend his statements criticizing Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and said, “I think at the time she was taking steps that were very, very pro-Palestinian.”

You got evidence of Clinton's "backpedaling," or must I take your word on faith?

[Gunny]

again an unsubstantiated and moonbat opinion.




Ah your hated shines. You are just looking for excuses to justify it. You are suffering from power envy.

But forced out of her party for chicanery if she was a GOPer? Hillarious.

The GOP hasn't had that kind of morality since it was prepared to impeach Nixon. The GOP is based on chicanery, like this thread topic.

Pure bullshit contrived to swiftboat another person serving their nation.

Ethics shine light on the deep corruption of the GOP.

You hate Pelosi for her ethics.

Sorry, people of Pelosi's ilk rate only contempt, not hatred. Not even a good try.

I envy no one. I am who and what I need to be. So that one doesn't work either.

[Birdzeye]

1. I'm obsessed with shining the harsh light of truth on Liberalism.





:lol:

Maybe I should rep you for making me laugh.

[Gunny]

You got evidence of Clinton's "backpedaling," or must I take your word on faith?

Nope, and I don't care enough to look it up. It's quite obvious you are attempting to pass off two completely different instances as the same.

The fact is this ... Pelosi knew full-well before she went that it was against the President's stated policy.

According to your own link, Gingrich obviously did not know that Clinton had gone against traditional US policy and made up his own shit contrary to it. Otherwise, Matthews would not have surprised him, would he?

Two competely different situations.

And just in case you think you have successfully deflected the thread as you libbies have tried to do from the start, it didn't work.

This is about Pelosi now, not Gingrich ever. I already said if he did the same thing, which obviously he didn't according to your own link, then he was just as guilty ethically.

Doesn't negate what Pelosi did, nor does it justify it.

[Birdzeye]

Nope, and I don't care enough to look it up. It's quite obvious you are attempting to pass off two completely different instances as the same.

The fact is this ... Pelosi knew full-well before she went that it was against the President's stated policy.

According to your own link, Gingrich obviously did not know that Clinton had gone against traditional US policy and made up his own shit contrary to it. Otherwise, Matthews would not have surprised him, would he?

Two competely different situations.

And just in case you think you have successfully deflected the thread as you libbies have tried to do from the start, it didn't work.

This is about Pelosi now, not Gingrich ever. I already said if he did the same thing, which obviously he didn't according to your own link, then he was just as guilty ethically.

Doesn't negate what Pelosi did, nor does it justify it.

Ah, so you didn't have anything to back up your claim to begin with! Then you have the gall to accuse ME of deflection!

The fact of the matter is, those who are pillorying Pelosi are hypocrites for not pillorying Gingrich in similar fashion, and then disingeniously trying to portray the two situations as different somehow. Maybe the True Believers will buy that snake oil you're peddling, but there are other people outside of the rightwing True Believer circle who aren't as gullible.

[stephanie]

Maybe we can stay in the HERE AND NOW...

Pelosi has been denounced by both the right and left for this stunt of hers..

She should be shunned, ridiculed, and stripped of the position as Speaker...

[Birdzeye]

Maybe we can stay in the HERE AND NOW...


Ah, yes, that happens to be the convenient approach for rightwingers right now.

It won't last. The next time one of their heroes gets caught doing something nefarious, we'll be hearing all about Ted Kennedy's driving habits all over again.

[typomaniac]

Ah, yes, that happens to be the convenient approach for rightwingers right now.

It won't last. The next time one of their heroes gets caught doing something nefarious, we'll be hearing all about Ted Kennedy's driving habits all over again.:clap:

[stephanie]

Ah, yes, that happens to be the convenient approach for right wingers right now.

It won't last. The next time one of their heroes gets caught doing something nefarious, we'll be hearing all about Ted Kennedy's driving habits all over again.

Wow...That was pretty insensitive...

Teddy's driving habits just happen to include the death of young women who he might of been able to help from drowning, if he hadn't been more worried about his own fat ass...

You people on left, can justify any horrific thing that one of your own do..

Just look how you all stand behind.....The Bj and what he did to his wife..

Now you all getting ready to vote for THE WIFEY...:slap:

[Gunny]

Ah, yes, that happens to be the convenient approach for rightwingers right now.

It won't last. The next time one of their heroes gets caught doing something nefarious, we'll be hearing all about Ted Kennedy's driving habits all over again.


You really can't be THAT dense.

Kennedy's money bought him out of a negligent homicide conviction that had that been you or I, it'd be on the record. And had he been a Republican, his own party would have forced him out.

I'd be less than happy to do an ethical conduct comparison if I were you. When Republicans violate the law, conservatives are the FIRST to condemn them for it. When it's a Democrat, they can hold the office for 38 years more and counting.

There's nothing convenient about forcing you deflection artists to stay on topic for once. This is about Nancy Pelosi ... not how many people Billy the Kid killed, nor how many B movies Reagan made.

[Gunny]

Wow...That was pretty insensitive...

Teddy's driving habits just happen to include the death of young women who he might of been able to help from drowning, if he hadn't been more worried about his own fat ass...

You people on left, can justify any horrific thing that one of your own do..

Just look how you all stand behind.....The Bj and what he did to his wife..

Now you all getting ready to vote for THE WIFEY...:slap:

Leftwingnut answer: You're just wrong, Stephanie. Teddy was NOT a fatass back then!

:laugh2:

[Birdzeye]

You really can't be THAT dense.


Ran out of arguments, that you have to resort to personal attacks? :lame2:


Kennedy's money bought him out of a negligent homicide conviction that had that been you or I, it'd be on the record. And had he been a Republican, his own party would have forced him out.


And they're off! Running off at the mouth over Kennedy again! Never mind that it happened - oh, some 40 years ago, and they just decreed that the more recent Gingrich trip matter was off limits because it was (inconvenient) history.


I'd be less than happy to do an ethical conduct comparison if I were you. When Republicans violate the law, conservatives are the FIRST to condemn them for it. When it's a Democrat, they can hold the office for 38 years more and counting.




:lol: :lol: :lol:

Go here and see how many bad boy Republican congressmen stayed in office even after their misdeeds were unearthed. The answer is > 0. (Ditto for the Democrats.) Your claim is bogus.

http://www.congressionalbadboys.com


There's nothing convenient about forcing you deflection artists to stay on topic for once. This is about Nancy Pelosi ... not how many people Billy the Kid killed, nor how many B movies Reagan made.


Where's the deflection? As I've said before, comparing her behavior with Newt's behavior, and the difference in reaction by the right wing to the two, is germane to the topic. Your pathetic accusations of deflection are an attempt to prevent inconvenient but relevant facts from being put on the table.

[stephanie]

Ran out of arguments, that you have to resort to personal attacks? :lame2:



And they're off! Running off at the mouth over Kennedy again! Never mind that it happened - oh, some 40 years ago, and they just decreed that the more recent Gingrich trip matter was off limits because it was (inconvenient) history.






:lol: :lol: :lol:

Go here and see how many bad boy Republican congressmen stayed in office even after their misdeeds were unearthed. The answer is > 0. (Ditto for the Democrats.) Your claim is bogus.

http://www.congressionalbadboys.com



Where's the deflection? As I've said before, comparing her behavior with Newt's behavior, and the difference in reaction by the right wing to the two, is germane to the topic. Your pathetic accusations of deflection are an attempt to prevent inconvenient but relevant facts from being put on the table.

Aaaaa..Your the one who brought up Teddy...:slap:

As for Pelosi.......I've already stated my opinion on it, and I will stand behind it...

[stephanie]

Leftwingnut answer: You're just wrong, Stephanie. Teddy was NOT a fatass back then!

:laugh2:

Leftwingnut answer: Teddy was just MISUNDERSTOOD....boo hoo:coffee:

[Birdzeye]

Wow...That was pretty insensitive...

Teddy's driving habits just happen to include the death of young women who he might of been able to help from drowning, if he hadn't been more worried about his own fat ass...

You people on left, can justify any horrific thing that one of your own do..


Please show me where I "justified" what Ted Kennedy did. I dare you. :mad:

I was making the point that when we brought up Gingrich's behavior, we got told that it was irrelevant because it was history. However, every time some right wing politician gets into trouble, we can count on some cynical rightwinger to bring up Teddy's misdeeds, even though they are "history" as well.

[stephanie]

Please show me where I "justified" what Ted Kennedy did. I dare you. :mad:

I was making the point that when we brought up Gingrich's behavior, we got told that it was irrelevant because it was history. However, every time some right wing politician gets into trouble, we can count on some cynical rightwinger to bring up Teddy's misdeeds, even though they are "history" as well.

Your the one who brought him up...
Don't know what more to tell ya...:poke:

[Birdzeye]

Leftwingnut answer: Teddy was just MISUNDERSTOOD....boo hoo:coffee:

:rolleyes:

[Birdzeye]

Your the one who brought him up...
Don't know what more to tell ya...:poke:

You didn't answer my question. Show me where I "justified" what he did. You're the one who brought THAT up.

[typomaniac]

You didn't answer my question. Show me where I "justified" what he did. You're the one who brought THAT up.Birdz, you should realize by now that baseless accusations are the stock in trade of the brainwashed right.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/borg_assimilation_faces.gif

[stephanie]

You didn't answer my question. Show me where I "justified" what he did. You're the one who brought THAT up.

you said...

They will bring up......Teddy's driving record..

So to me you saying it like that....You do justify it...

only my 2cnt on it....:poke:

[OCA]

You really do live in a cave don't you?

The US supported the taliban up until the month before we invaded Afghanistan, even giving them funds to build a soccer stadium.

You seriously need to clean the GOP out of your ears and digest some reality.

Gaffe, you are walking blind and dumb. Lost, without a clue about anything.


You have zero understanding of geopolitical politics, do you?

[Birdzeye]

you said...

They will bring up......Teddy's driving record..

So to me you saying it like that....You do justify it...

only my 2cnt on it....:poke:

Sigh. You mistakenly inferred that I had justified Kennedy's behavior, when I did nothing of the kind.

[Birdzeye]

Birdz, you should realize by now that baseless accusations are the stock in trade of the brainwashed right.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/borg_assimilation_faces.gif

I'm beginning to think you're right.

[stephanie]

Sigh. You mistakenly inferred that I had justified Kennedy's behavior, when I did nothing of the kind.

Well evidently a lot of people do justify it...

They keep voting for and supporting him... :puke:

[Birdzeye]

Well evidently a lot of people do justify it...

They keep voting for and supporting him... :puke:

Well, I'll let the people of Massachusetts explain themselves. I've never had the opportunity to vote for or against him.

I felt the same kind of antipathy towards a few other senators (or former senators), like Jesse Helms and Rick Santorum. I never understood what the people of those states saw in those guys.

[stephanie]

Well, I'll let the people of Massachusetts explain themselves. I've never had the opportunity to vote for or against him.

I felt the same kind of antipathy towards a few other senators (or former senators), like Jesse Helms and Rick Santorum. I never understood what the people of those states saw in those guys.

What ever you fell about them...

They weren't accused of murdering a person..

[Birdzeye]

What ever you fell about them...

They weren't accused of murdering a person..

Committing murder isn't a prerequisite for becoming a member of the scumbag club.

[Abbey Marie]

Committing murder isn't a prerequisite for becoming a member of the scumbag club.

You're right. Being a high-ranking official in the KKK works too!

For example, here's a quote from your party's Senator Byrd (D-W.Va.).. Also interesting when juxtaposed with Imus' recent statement).

"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

[Birdzeye]

Both parties have scumbags, and politics seems to be a career that attracts that type.

[Abbey Marie]

Both parties have scumbags, and politics seems to be a career that attracts that type.

We can agree on that. :cheers2:

[stephanie]

Both parties have scumbags, and politics seems to be a career that attracts that type.

very true..
:cheers2:

[Gunny]

Birdz, you should realize by now that baseless accusations are the stock in trade of the brainwashed right.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/borg_assimilation_faces.gif

You do of course realize that it isn't the right who has come on here and attempted to compare any and everything any Republican has ever done in an attempt to downplay and deflect?

But I won't go so far as to call that brainwashed .... desperate fits better.

[Gunny]

Ah, so you didn't have anything to back up your claim to begin with! Then you have the gall to accuse ME of deflection!

The fact of the matter is, those who are pillorying Pelosi are hypocrites for not pillorying Gingrich in similar fashion, and then disingeniously trying to portray the two situations as different somehow. Maybe the True Believers will buy that snake oil you're peddling, but there are other people outside of the rightwing True Believer circle who aren't as gullible.

Sure I did. Your own damned link. Try reading it.

And not supporting one's statement is not called "deflection," oh genius one, it's called not supporting one's statement. I'm not backing off of it nor trying to reply with ... " but Jimmy Carter did this or LBJ did that." THAT is deflection. Introducing something completely irrelevant, such as you have continued to attempt to do from the start.

But at least get your terminology right before you to pointing fingers.

Why the fuck should we pillory Gingrich now for something he did back then because Pelosi fucked up now? Nonsensical bullshit.

And any second grader can see the difference between beforehand knowledge and after-the-fact correction. Unless they've been trained by some left-wingnut reaching farther and farther into left field desperately trying to defend an untenable position.

[Gunny]

Ran out of arguments, that you have to resort to personal attacks? :lame2:



And they're off! Running off at the mouth over Kennedy again! Never mind that it happened - oh, some 40 years ago, and they just decreed that the more recent Gingrich trip matter was off limits because it was (inconvenient) history.






:lol: :lol: :lol:

Go here and see how many bad boy Republican congressmen stayed in office even after their misdeeds were unearthed. The answer is > 0. (Ditto for the Democrats.) Your claim is bogus.

http://www.congressionalbadboys.com



Where's the deflection? As I've said before, comparing her behavior with Newt's behavior, and the difference in reaction by the right wing to the two, is germane to the topic. Your pathetic accusations of deflection are an attempt to prevent inconvenient but relevant facts from being put on the table.

nah ... just tired of repeating the same common sense and logic to someone with a comprehension problem.

[Gunny]

Please show me where I "justified" what Ted Kennedy did. I dare you. :mad:

I was making the point that when we brought up Gingrich's behavior, we got told that it was irrelevant because it was history. However, every time some right wing politician gets into trouble, we can count on some cynical rightwinger to bring up Teddy's misdeeds, even though they are "history" as well.

Depends on the topic. Are you saying the degree of severity between negligent homicide and poor judgement are the same?

I think not.

[Gunny]

Sigh. You mistakenly inferred that I had justified Kennedy's behavior, when I did nothing of the kind.

And you inferred you at least excused his behavior by say it should not be brought up as if it were irrelevant and unimportant.

It's a perfect example of you lefties not holding your own accountable for their indiscretions. The fact that he still holds office says Democrats justify or at least excuse his behavior.

Yet Bush gets a DUI and y'all act like he murdered the Pope.

THERE is your hypocrisy.

[Birdzeye]

And you inferred you at least excused his behavior by say it should not be brought up as if it were irrelevant and unimportant.




I did no such thing. I neither excused his behavior nor said it "shouldn't" be brought up. What I said was that the rightwingers who were so eager to establish some new rule of debate - that an event that happened years ago - would quickly abandon that rule if it were to their advantage to bring up Kennedy's "accident" from some 40 years ago. How you can infer from that that I had excused his behavior is beyond me.

[glockmail]

:lol:

Maybe I should rep you for making me laugh. Or pointing out the truth. Name one thing I said about Libs that was not 100% accurate.

[Gunny]

I did no such thing. I neither excused his behavior nor said it "shouldn't" be brought up. What I said was that the rightwingers who were so eager to establish some new rule of debate - that an event that happened years ago - would quickly abandon that rule if it were to their advantage to bring up Kennedy's "accident" from some 40 years ago. How you can infer from that that I had excused his behavior is beyond me.

Sure it's beyond you. Just as the irrelevancy of Gingrich to Pelosi is beyond you.

Has any "right winger" brought Kennedy into this debate? No. You did. Again I will ask, is negligent homicide comparable in severity to poor judgement? Since you won't answer, I will. No, it isn't.

When you're trying your damnedest to excuse Pelosi's behavior, it's a fair assumption when you toss Kennedy out as if "right wingers" unfairly attack him that you are excusing his behavior.

Wht have I learned from all this? You think you can arbitrarily compare any behavior to another's behavior, regardless the behavior and context, and twist it how you want to suit your argument.

[Birdzeye]

Or pointing out the truth. Name one thing I said about Libs that was not 100% accurate.

I can't think of anything you said about Libs that was even 1% accurate.

[Birdzeye]

Sure it's beyond you. Just as the irrelevancy of Gingrich to Pelosi is beyond you.

Has any "right winger" brought Kennedy into this debate? No. You did. Again I will ask, is negligent homicide comparable in severity to poor judgement? Since you won't answer, I will. No, it isn't.

When you're trying your damnedest to excuse Pelosi's behavior, it's a fair assumption when you toss Kennedy out as if "right wingers" unfairly attack him that you are excusing his behavior.

Wht have I learned from all this? You think you can arbitrarily compare any behavior to another's behavior, regardless the behavior and context, and twist it how you want to suit your argument.


Still trying to keep alive that chestnut about the "irrelevancy" of Pelosi and Gingrich?

Why did I bring in Kennedy? To make the point that the right wingers, who here had just tried to establish some silly unwritten rule about not bringing up history in a debate, would gladly abandon that rule when it suited them. I offered up as an example the right wing fondness for bringing up Kennedy's misbehavior when it suited them. At no time have I condoned Kennedy's behavior.

The comparison between Gingrich and Pelosi is a legitimate one, since both occurred in similar contexts. Your efforts to argue to the contrary are just an attempt to twist the "rules" of the debate to your advantage.

[loosecannon]

The comparison between Gingrich and Pelosi is a legitimate one, since both occurred in similar contexts. Your efforts to argue to the contrary are just an attempt to twist the "rules" of the debate to your advantage.

Of course this is legit.

Pelosi did nothing wrong, nada.

No felony, nothing unethical, nothing at all.

The rightwingbots are just trying to manufacture some "gotcha" point to emeliorate the "ouch" of Bush's decline, and the massive tsunami of GOP scandals that are bringing down the house.

This entire thread is a GOP deflection thread.

[typomaniac]

Bottom line: if nobody on the House floor is mentioning the Logan Act, the whole "controversy" doesn't amount to a fart in a hurricane.

[Gunny]

Still trying to keep alive that chestnut about the "irrelevancy" of Pelosi and Gingrich?

Why did I bring in Kennedy? To make the point that the right wingers, who here had just tried to establish some silly unwritten rule about not bringing up history in a debate, would gladly abandon that rule when it suited them. I offered up as an example the right wing fondness for bringing up Kennedy's misbehavior when it suited them. At no time have I condoned Kennedy's behavior.

The comparison between Gingrich and Pelosi is a legitimate one, since both occurred in similar contexts. Your efforts to argue to the contrary are just an attempt to twist the "rules" of the debate to your advantage.

The comparison between Gingrich and Pelosi is NOT legitimate, and i have shown how. Twisting the truth isn't necessary when one understands the word "context;" which obviously, you do not. The contexts were not similar at all. Twisting the rules of debate never comes into play.

If it is wrong when "right wingers" drag up Kennedy, then what makes it right when you try to drag up Gingrich? Nothing.

Quite simply, and once again, this thread is about Pelosi. No Gingrich. Not Kennedy. Not Abraham Lincoln. THAT would fall under the "rules of debate."

It's what she did on its own merit. I think you have more than made the point that her actions are indefensible since rather than defend them, you keep looking for something some republican at some point in time in history has done as a means of deflection and downplaying Pelosi's actions.

Both are obvious, simplistic ploys, and I fall for neither.

[Gunny]

Bottom line: if nobody on the House floor is mentioning the Logan Act, the whole "controversy" doesn't amount to a fart in a hurricane.

And they won't. The Democrats don't hold their own accountable for their indiscretions.

[glockmail]

I can't think of anything you said about Libs that was even 1% accurate. Yet you can't logically dispute any of it. Funny how that works. :laugh2:

[Birdzeye]

And they won't. The Democrats don't hold their own accountable for their indiscretions.

I guess you didn't bother to look at a certain link I provided earlier:

http://www.congressionalbadboys.com

If you bothered to look at it, you'd find that your statement is patently false.

[Birdzeye]

Yet you can't logically dispute any of it. Funny how that works. :laugh2:

How could I logically dispute something that's already devoid of logic?

[glockmail]

How could I logically dispute something that's already devoid of logic?
I agree. Liberalism is devoid of logic.

[loosecannon]

Yet you can't logically dispute any of it. Funny how that works. :laugh2:

Sure she can, easy.

Lay out your POV so She can evicerate you.

Dancing around and saying somebody can't dismantle your bs is like saying you have a ten inch cock.

If you have to say it, it likely is just 4"long.

[Birdzeye]

I agree. Liberalism is devoid of logic.

Your comments are devoid of logic.

[Gunny]

I guess you didn't bother to look at a certain link I provided earlier:

http://www.congressionalbadboys.com

If you bothered to look at it, you'd find that your statement is patently false.

Nope sure didn't. What's it say? Give us the short version. One Dem got held accountable somewhere so it somehow negates Robert Byrd, Kennedy, Pelosi, Clinton ....?

[glockmail]

Sure she can, easy.

Lay out your POV so She can evicerate you.

......

If you have to say it, it likely is just 4"long. My arguments are here in the public record. He/she can do their best on anyone chosen.

[Birdzeye]

The comparison between Gingrich and Pelosi is NOT legitimate, and i have shown how. Twisting the truth isn't necessary when one understands the word "context;" which obviously, you do not. The contexts were not similar at all. Twisting the rules of debate never comes into play.

If it is wrong when "right wingers" drag up Kennedy, then what makes it right when you try to drag up Gingrich? Nothing.

Quite simply, and once again, this thread is about Pelosi. No Gingrich. Not Kennedy. Not Abraham Lincoln. THAT would fall under the "rules of debate."

It's what she did on its own merit. I think you have more than made the point that her actions are indefensible since rather than defend them, you keep looking for something some republican at some point in time in history has done as a means of deflection and downplaying Pelosi's actions.

Both are obvious, simplistic ploys, and I fall for neither.


Once again, I'll try to say this very slowly, trying to avoid fancy words so you'll understand.

I didn't say it was "wrong" to drag up Kennedy. I said that some here tried to establish an unwritten rule that history could not be brought up in the discussion, because it suited their purposes at the time (keeping the inconvenient truth about Gingrich out of it, that is). I merely pointed out that the same cast of characters would quickly dump that rule and dredge up the memory of Chappaquiddick if it suited them.

As for "context," comparing Pelosi and Gingrich is perfectly within the context of this discussion, because both traveled abroad as Speakers and talked with foreign officials; yet only Pelosi got condemned by conservatives while Gingrich didn't. The hypocrisy is astounding, and I understand that that is why you want to make another unwritten rule to keep another inconvenient truth out of the discussion.

Now, please stop putting words into my mouth.

[Birdzeye]

Nope sure didn't. What's it say? Give us the short version. One Dem got held accountable somewhere so it somehow negates Robert Byrd, Kennedy, Pelosi, Clinton ....?

Take a look and you'll see. There are too many recent politicians, in both parties, who have the dubious honor of being noted at that website, whose political careers ended under a cloud. Too many to list here.

[Gunny]

Once again, I'll try to say this very slowly, trying to avoid fancy words so you'll understand.

I didn't say it was "wrong" to drag up Kennedy. I said that some here tried to establish an unwritten rule that history could not be brought up in the discussion, because it suited their purposes at the time (keeping the inconvenient truth about Gingrich out of it, that is). I merely pointed out that the same cast of characters would quickly dump that rule and dredge up the memory of Chappaquiddick if it suited them.

As for "context," comparing Pelosi and Gingrich is perfectly within the context of this discussion, because both traveled abroad as Speakers and talked with foreign officials; yet only Pelosi got condemned by conservatives while Gingrich didn't. The hypocrisy is astounding, and I understand that that is why you want to make another unwritten rule to keep another inconvenient truth out of the discussion.

Now, please stop putting words into my mouth.

You can say it as many times as you wish. You are wrong. Anyone capable of comprehending the English language knows you are wrong, and you keep doing nothing but repeating yourself. I realize you like birds. That doesn't mean you have to be one.

I put no words in your mouth. Just used the ones you provided to sink your boat.

[Gunny]

Take a look and you'll see. There are too many recent politicians, in both parties, who have the dubious honor of being noted at that website, whose political careers ended under a cloud. Too many to list here.

Which still does not address the indiscretions of the ones I mentioned. So basically, Republicans sacrifice no matter who, and dem's sacrifice the small fry to say they do the same.

Lovely.:rolleyes:

[Birdzeye]

You can say it as many times as you wish. You are wrong. Anyone capable of comprehending the English language knows you are wrong, and you keep doing nothing but repeating yourself. I realize you like birds. That doesn't mean you have to be one.

I put no words in your mouth. Just used the ones you provided to sink your boat.

I can say it as many times as I wish because I am right.

And the wisecrack about my not having to be a bird is not an insult, even though I'm sure you intended it that way. I have three parrots and they are smart little devils.

[Birdzeye]

Which still does not address the indiscretions of the ones I mentioned. So basically, Republicans sacrifice no matter who, and dem's sacrifice the small fry to say they do the same.

Lovely.:rolleyes:

Please examine the link I provided. It shows your claim is false.

[Gunny]

I can say it as many times as I wish because I am right.

And the wisecrack about my not having to be a bird is not an insult, even though I'm sure you intended it that way. I have three parrots and they are smart little devils.


You are as wrong the last time as you were the first. If you think you're hard-headed enough to outlast me, ask around. I assure you are not. But I'll give you another shot.

Pelosi made a trip to meet with a foreign leader of a country the President has said we would not negotiate with until it closed its borders. This has been common knowledge for over a year.

She made the trip under the premise of representing the US's position on the Middle East, and she opened a dialogue with the president of Syria.

Her conduct is unethical. She does not represent US foreign policy, nor the President. She is Speaker of the House and she went against the stated foreign policy of the Chief Executive.

Defend her actions WITHOUT throwing anyone else's name out there.

[Gunny]

Please examine the link I provided. It shows your claim is false.

Hardly.

[Birdzeye]

Hardly.

Then you haven't examined it.

[loosecannon]

My arguments are here in the public record. He/she can do their best on anyone chosen.

so iow you are cutting and running.

[Gunny]

Then you haven't examined it.

I did. Has nothing to do with this thread, and pretty-much is as I said. Maybe if you go change it and I'll go back and look again it'll say something else?:rolleyes:

[glockmail]

so iow you are cutting and running.
"iow"? :wtf:

Yeah, I'm one to cut and run. :rolleyes:

[No1tovote4]

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't answer the question definitively. My point is that if it's a "felony" or "stupid," that label applies to the Republican congressmen who also traveled to the ME and met with national leaders there.

The Bush apologists want to have it both ways: they want it to be a "felony" or "stupid" ONLY for Pelosi but not the Republicans.

It will be interesting to see what bogus "scandal" the right wingers manufacture for Madam Speaker.

The difference would be, according to the law, whether they had the backing of the President when they traveled there. Without it, it seems I was incorrect and she can be prosecuted.

The law specifically states governments with which we are having issues, we are not having issues with the Iraqi government in that way so Iraq may not apply. I would look at Newt in China for an example. Did Newt have the backing of Clinton when he went there?

The Logan Act is pretty clear, if Pelosi went there without the backing of the Executive she can be prosecuted.

[No1tovote4]

One of the main items for consideration is whether there is enough will to get a Special Prosecutor for this action. That the law hasn't been used in a long time does not make it so nobody can be prosecuted on the law.

[loosecannon]

That the law hasn't been used in a long time does not make it so nobody can be prosecuted on the law.

You mean that the law has never been enforced even once in 208 years.

If you are serious I will just have to laugh out loud.

[loosecannon]

"iow"? :wtf:

Yeah, I'm one to cut and run. :rolleyes:

Well quit cutting and running from Birdz. Lay out your POV about libs so she can rip you a new asshole.

[CockySOB]

The Logan Act is pretty clear, if Pelosi went there without the backing of the Executive she can be prosecuted.
"Can" and "will" are two different critters though.

[lily]

One of the main items for consideration is whether there is enough will to get a Special Prosecutor for this action. That the law hasn't been used in a long time does not make it so nobody can be prosecuted on the law.

In al honesty, I'd love to see this. It would show how desperate the Republicans are, since it's never been used and I doubt anyone has ever heard of it before this. Talk about grasping at straws.

[glockmail]

Well quit cutting and running from Birdz. Lay out your POV about libs so she can rip you a new asshole.

Apparently you are her new asshole.

For the second time, my POV is clear on numerous subjects. Pick one and fly with it.

[Gunny]

In al honesty, I'd love to see this. It would show how desperate the Republicans are, since it's never been used and I doubt anyone has ever heard of it before this. Talk about grasping at straws.

I see. Prosecuting Republicans is okay. Libby wasn't sheer desperation at its finest. But prosecuting Democrats who actually break the law is desperation?

Talk about your double standard.

[loosecannon]

Apparently you are her new asshole.

For the second time, my POV is clear on numerous subjects. Pick one and fly with it.

OK, if you wanna cut and run from Birdz that's cool. (squak!)

[loosecannon]

I see. Prosecuting Republicans is okay. Libby wasn't sheer desperation at its finest. But prosecuting Democrats who actually break the law is desperation?

Talk about your double standard.

Pelosi didn't break the law, not even close. That is half of the double standard.

[stephanie]

Pelosi didn't break the law, not even close. That is half of the double standard.

It's to be seen if she broke the law..

Pelosi was not elected by the people of the United States to represent us in foreign policy..

The only thing she was ELECTED to......was to represent the city and people of San Francisco...

SHE DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME.......

She should be shunned, ridiculed, and stripped of her Speaker position...

[manu1959]

It's to be seen if she broke the law..

Pelosi was not elected by the people of the United States to represent us in foreign policy..

The only thing she was ELECTED to......was to represent the city of San Francisco...

SHE DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME.......

She should be shunned, ridiculed, and stripped of her Speaker position...

she was interviewed on local news last night and she said she went to syria and the message was the same as the presidents....

sure sounds like she was negotiating foriegn policy....bush asked her not to go....if both "facts" are true...sure seems like a potential logan act violation....

personally...don't care....syria has not closed the boarder for her or bush...kinda says it all ....

[SassyLady]

But Pelosi DIDN"T negotiate with Syria. She MET with Syria's pres, which is perfectly legal, ethical and none of Bush's damned business.

Meanwhile when GOPers commit the very crime you are dwelling on, you don't care.

Actually, she is my rep and quite frankly, while you don't think it is any of Bush's business, it is, in fact, "my" damn business and I don't approve of what she did. She was elected to take care of domestic matters. She was not appointed by anyone to meet with any heads of state.

BTW - I am not a republican so please don't delude yourself in thinking my thought process comes from a party line.

And for the record, who said that no one here disapproved of the GOPers when they did the same thing.

What I think people on this board disapprove of is the old DEM "tit for tat" thinking. "Welllllllllllll, she should be allowed to participate in unethical behavior because XYZ did it!" That is such bullshit.....I didn't let my kids get away with that rationale and I won't let my elected reps use it either.

[SassyLady]

Gingrich has everything to do with this. As Speaker, he also took official trips and spoke with foreign leaders, the way Pelosi has recently. The only difference between the two is that conservatives never criticized Gingrich even though they go as far as to try to pin the "treason" label on Pelosi (I guess they haven't read the law or case history about treason).

It's all about double standards.


You have facts to prove this. Are you saying the administration had listening devices in every conservatives home and place of business to determine that they NEVER criticized Gringrich for his foreign trips???

Amazing how those devices work........:slap:

[SassyLady]

SHe DOES represent the US House speaker position which is exactly what she represented.

And by extension she represents the congress to some degree. And the Congress is a co equal branch of our government.

She didn't represent the president, or the official position of the US.

I'm confused Cannon - I thought you said she went over there "unoffically" as an average Joe Citizen and therefore she could do and say anything she wanted.

[SassyLady]

Birdz, you should realize by now that baseless accusations are the stock in trade of the brainwashed right.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/borg_assimilation_faces.gif

are you saying that the accusations against Ted Kennedy are "baseless"? Wow.....

Anyway, I thought this thread was about Pelosi, not Kennedy or Gringrich.

Politicans will do and say anything to further whatever their current platform is........and they will recant later on what they say today if they think it will get them more publicity or votes.

Can't think of any that haven't been bitten on the ass by their flip flopping. And now with the internet and blogosphere, what they said yesterday, last week, last year, last lifetime can, and will, be brought back up when they start running off at the mouth about their current "fad".

I'll never forget Clinton's evasive answer.....

[SassyLady]

Once again, I'll try to say this very slowly, trying to avoid fancy words so you'll understand.

I didn't say it was "wrong" to drag up Kennedy. I said that some here tried to establish an unwritten rule that history could not be brought up in the discussion, because it suited their purposes at the time (keeping the inconvenient truth about Gingrich out of it, that is). I merely pointed out that the same cast of characters would quickly dump that rule and dredge up the memory of Chappaquiddick if it suited them.

As for "context," comparing Pelosi and Gingrich is perfectly within the context of this discussion, because both traveled abroad as Speakers and talked with foreign officials; yet only Pelosi got condemned by conservatives while Gingrich didn't. The hypocrisy is astounding, and I understand that that is why you want to make another unwritten rule to keep another inconvenient truth out of the discussion.

Now, please stop putting words into my mouth.

Let's turn this around to see if the logic is correct.

You say: Conservatives condemn Pelosi.
You also say: Conservatives didn't condemn Gringrich.

Am I correct so far?

OK.......now

Are you saying that liberals didn't condemn Gringrich and that is why they are not condemning Pelosi?

Cause I gotta think from your premise that if you did one, you must do the other; or if you didn't do one you can't do the other.:poke:



Did it ever occur to you that conservatives might have learned their lesson after Gringrich? That perhaps they think they should have spoke up?

Hope this wasn't too confusing.

[stephanie]

Pelosi is only an elected official of San. Fransisco...She only represents the people and the city of San Francisco....

All she is.....is a Speaker of the house....
She has no position to deal with our foreign policy...
A President of The United States was VOTED in, and he in turn appointed the person who shall represent us in Foreign affairs...


Pelosi does not speak for Me....I did NOT VOTE FOR OR ELECT HER TO SPEAK FOR ME...

Pelosi should be shunned, ridiculed, and stripped of her position as Speaker.
She has been called out from both the right and left for this stunt of her..

[Birdzeye]

I did. Has nothing to do with this thread, and pretty-much is as I said. Maybe if you go change it and I'll go back and look again it'll say something else?:rolleyes:

It has everything to do with this thread, ever since the claim was brought up that GOPers get rid of their bad boys while Dems don't. Since that was brought up, it was entirely appropriate for me to bring in evidence to the contrary. That you are now trying to dismiss that as irrelevant now suggests that you realize that the claim of GOP moral superiority is bogus.

[Birdzeye]

The difference would be, according to the law, whether they had the backing of the President when they traveled there. Without it, it seems I was incorrect and she can be prosecuted.

The law specifically states governments with which we are having issues, we are not having issues with the Iraqi government in that way so Iraq may not apply. I would look at Newt in China for an example. Did Newt have the backing of Clinton when he went there?

The Logan Act is pretty clear, if Pelosi went there without the backing of the Executive she can be prosecuted.

Did Gingrich have the backing of the then-president when he went traveling and meeting with foreign leaders?

[Birdzeye]

Pelosi was not elected by the people of the United States to represent us in foreign policy..



Neither was Gingrich.

[Gunny]

It has everything to do with this thread, ever since the claim was brought up that GOPers get rid of their bad boys while Dems don't. Since that was brought up, it was entirely appropriate for me to bring in evidence to the contrary. That you are now trying to dismiss that as irrelevant now suggests that you realize that the claim of GOP moral superiority is bogus.


Incorrect. Your link only breaks down who was relieved and why. It does not address who forced them out except randomly by chance; WHICH, happened to be my point, and you know it.

So, I dismiss your link as irrelevant to the point I made beacuse it is. It is is not appropriate for you to bring into evidence a square peg and try and force it into a round hole.

My claim stands.

[Gunny]

Did Gingrich have the backing of the then-president when he went traveling and meeting with foreign leaders?

Gingrich is irrelevant to the topic.

[Gunny]

Neither was Gingrich.

Gingrich is irrelevant to the topic.

[glockmail]

OK, if you wanna cut and run from Birdz that's cool. (squak!) I offer a challenge and you call it cut and run. You appear to be a confused, young boy.

[Gunny]

Neither was Gingrich.

btw ... are you conceding this argument?

I made my point, without aid of dragging anyone else into it, in regard to Pelosi's conduct. The argument stands on its own merit.

Though I have previously requested, you have not done the same. You have yet to defend Pelosi's conduct on its own merit.

THAT would be adhering to the "rules of debate" which you previously accused me of "twisting." Seems I am not the one that doesn't understand them ......

[loosecannon]

I offer a challenge and you call it cut and run. You appear to be a confused, young boy.


No glock I issued a challenge to you and you keep ducking, shucking and cutrunning away from it.

[loosecannon]

I'm confused Cannon - I thought you said she went over there "unoffically" as an average Joe Citizen and therefore she could do and say anything she wanted.


Yes you appear confused.

Pelosi went to Syria as speaker of the house, something she is entitled to do.

She is third in line to the presidency.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that she overstepped her bounds.

This is a baseless witch hunt like the ones that plagued Clinton his entire term.

[Gunny]

Yes you appear confused.

Pelosi went to Syria as speaker of the house, something she is entitled to do.

She is third in line to the presidency.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that she overstepped her bounds.

This is a baseless witch hunt like the ones that plagued Clinton his entire term.

A member of the US Government is NOT entitled to make a trip to a nation when it violates current, stated foreign policy. Period. End of story. No if's and's nor but's.

it isn't a baseless witchhunt. The facts are plain to see, and you refuse to for no more reason than it suits your partisan political agenda.

Being third in line to the Presidency is irrelavent to the discussion.

[loosecannon]

A member of the US Government is NOT entitled to make a trip to a nation when it violates current, stated foreign policy.

You gonna try to prove this or keep blowing smoke? Your entire witch hunt relies on this point, so prove it.

Keep in mind you gotta prove that Pelosi's words and actions match whatever "authoritative" instrument prohibits her from going to Syria.

...................

[Birdzeye]

btw ... are you conceding this argument?

I made my point, without aid of dragging anyone else into it, in regard to Pelosi's conduct. The argument stands on its own merit.

Though I have previously requested, you have not done the same. You have yet to defend Pelosi's conduct on its own merit.

THAT would be adhering to the "rules of debate" which you previously accused me of "twisting." Seems I am not the one that doesn't understand them ......

What's to concede? There's nothing to defend, since all that Pelosi's enemies are providing is smoke and mirrors, and it gets a little tiresome to refute the same horseshit six, seven, or more times.

[Gunny]

You gonna try to prove this or keep blowing smoke? Your entire witch hunt relies on this point, so prove it.

Keep in mind you gotta prove that Pelosi's words and actions match whatever "authoritative" instrument prohibits her from going to Syria.

...................

GMAFB. Now you want to caveat with some bullshit parameters of your choosing? I don't have to prove her words did shit. Her actions speak for themselves, and it is THEY that prove my argument.

You can also try all you want to find where I stated Pelosi was prohibited from going to Syria but you'll just come up the same as your argument ... empty. I'm not going to try and prove a stance I have not taken.

Let's do this so that even a third grader like you can understand ...

The Constitution of the United States delegates the responsibility for formulating foreign policy to the executive branch, not the legislative branch.

The President's current foreign ploicy concerning negotiations with Syria is that there will be none until Syria closes its borders.

Now here's your own liberal rag reporting what Pelosi and Assad discussed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401351.html

If it looks, smells, and sound like negotiating, guess WTF it is ......

Is it the Speaker of the House's position in government to negotiate foreign affairs for the executive branch? No it is not.

If you cannot see that for unethical behavior since everything is there but pics of pelosi and assad in bed together, then you're just an idiot.

[Gunny]

What's to concede? There's nothing to defend, since all that Pelosi's enemies are providing is smoke and mirrors, and it gets a little tiresome to refute the same horseshit six, seven, or more times.

The facts are clear and obvious. The only smoke and mirrors is your continued attempts at deflection. You have refuted nothing. A dozen attempts at deflection will net you the same end result.

[glockmail]

No glock I issued a challenge to you and you keep ducking, shucking and cutrunning away from it. Where? Was it specific enough for me to act on? Ask anyone here if I'm one to run from a challenge, even Gunny's stoopid physical threats.

[Birdzeye]

The facts are clear and obvious. The only smoke and mirrors is your continued attempts at deflection. You have refuted nothing. A dozen attempts at deflection will net you the same end result.

You're the one who's deflecting, by trying to dismiss any arguments not in line with your opinions. The facts may be clear and obvious, but you don't seem privy to them. The smoke and mirrors is coming from the right wing, with their repeated attempts to resurrect stories that simply aren't true. It gets boring to hear the same lies from the right time after time after time.

[loosecannon]

GMAFB. Now you want to caveat with some bullshit parameters of your choosing? I don't have to prove her words did shit. Her actions speak for themselves, and it is THEY that prove my argument.

You can also try all you want to find where I stated Pelosi was prohibited from going to Syria but you'll just come up the same as your argument ... empty. I'm not going to try and prove a stance I have not taken.

Let's do this so that even a third grader like you can understand ...

The Constitution of the United States delegates the responsibility for formulating foreign policy to the executive branch, not the legislative branch.

The President's current foreign ploicy concerning negotiations with Syria is that there will be none until Syria closes its borders.

Now here's your own liberal rag reporting what Pelosi and Assad discussed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401351.html

If it looks, smells, and sound like negotiating, guess WTF it is ......

Is it the Speaker of the House's position in government to negotiate foreign affairs for the executive branch? No it is not.

If you cannot see that for unethical behavior since everything is there but pics of pelosi and assad in bed together, then you're just an idiot.


OK, you fell far short.

To prove your case you have to establish what your allegations are.

Then you have to present the instrument of law and in this case policy that you feel pelosi violated.

Then you have to demonstrate that pelosi's actions and in this case words violated that instrument of law.

You accomplished none of that.

You can't claim "unethical" based on nothing. You need a basis in ETHICS and a violation of PROTOCOL and a demonstration of severity to make such an assertion.

You can however have an opinion without cause, which is really ALL you have presented so far

GMAFB ?

[loosecannon]

You're the one who's deflecting, by trying to dismiss any arguments not in line with your opinions. The facts may be clear and obvious, but you don't seem privy to them. The smoke and mirrors is coming from the right wing, with their repeated attempts to resurrect stories that simply aren't true. It gets boring to hear the same lies from the right time after time after time.

I might add that when an allegation is made, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not vice versa.

[loosecannon]

Where? Was it specific enough for me to act on? Ask anyone here if I'm one to run from a challenge, even Gunny's stoopid physical threats.


where, upthread, read the thread

specific enough, yes, you keep dodging it

[Abbey Marie]

OK, you fell far short.

To prove your case you have to establish what your allegations are.

Then you have to present the instrument of law and in this case policy that you feel pelosi violated.

Then you have to demonstrate that pelosi's actions and in this case words violated that instrument of law.

You accomplished none of that.

You can't claim "unethical" based on nothing. You need a basis in ETHICS and a violation of PROTOCOL and a demonstration of severity to make such an assertion.

You can however have an opinion without cause, which is really ALL you have presented so far

GMAFB ?

Gunny did every one of those things, easily, and anyone who is honest can see it. Intelligent debate with you isn't even debate, it is simply a waste of time. Beats me why anyone bothers.

[Gunny]

OK, you fell far short.

To prove your case you have to establish what your allegations are.

Then you have to present the instrument of law and in this case policy that you feel pelosi violated.

Then you have to demonstrate that pelosi's actions and in this case words violated that instrument of law.

You accomplished none of that.

You can't claim "unethical" based on nothing. You need a basis in ETHICS and a violation of PROTOCOL and a demonstration of severity to make such an assertion.

You can however have an opinion without cause, which is really ALL you have presented so far

GMAFB ?

I fell short of nothing. The law that establishes areas of responsibility is the US Constitution. The policy is there, as stated. Pelosi violated that policy ... the link is there. Solid, proven case for unethical behavior.

She negotiated with the leader of a foreign country the President's policy states the US will not negotiate with. No further evidence required.

There is no law to post as I have never contended Pelosi violated a law. That just about shoots your entire disclaimer here to shit.

You don't see it because it doesn't matter what I post, you aren't going to. You're a blind, political hack who couldn't have an honest debate about your favorite flavor ice cream.

[Gunny]

Gunny did every one of those things, easily, and anyone who is honest can see it. Intelligent debate with you isn't even debate, it is simply waste of time. Beats me why anyone bothers.

I won't anymore. He's nothing but a troll and blind partisan hack who has yet to substantiate ANYTHING he has posted except for an op-ed from the New Yorker magazine.

[loosecannon]

I fell short of nothing. The law that establishes areas of responsibility is the US Constitution. The policy is there, as stated. Pelosi violated that policy ... the link is there. Solid, proven case for unethical behavior.

She negotiated with the leader of a foreign country the President's policy states the US will not negotiate with. No further evidence required.

There is no law to post as I have never contended Pelosi violated a law. That just about shoots your entire disclaimer here to shit.

You don't see it because it doesn't matter what I post, you aren't going to. You're a blind, political hack who couldn't have an honest debate about your favorite flavor ice cream.


Look Bozo, state your allegation, state the violation, then prove your case.

You are worming around because you can't make your case.

Simply asking me to see it when you won't post it sounds like an admission of being WRONG.

Burden of proof is on the accuser. You.

[Gunny]

You're the one who's deflecting, by trying to dismiss any arguments not in line with your opinions. The facts may be clear and obvious, but you don't seem privy to them. The smoke and mirrors is coming from the right wing, with their repeated attempts to resurrect stories that simply aren't true. It gets boring to hear the same lies from the right time after time after time.

I've dismissed only your cheesy attempts to deflect from answering the topic. You've been everywhere in your posts except that you have YET to defend Pelosi's actions on their own merit.

The only one resurrecting shit here is YOU. I surely didn't drag up some 10+ years old bullshit as an attempt to deflect from the topic. YOU did.

The problem here is you've been had and just can't accept the fact. Your third-grade level debate style has been exposed for what it is, and you the petty partisan hack tapdancing all over the place for what you are.

And when all that failed you went to personal insults. Hoep you don't think I was surprised.

[loosecannon]

I fell short of nothing.

so post the law


The law that establishes areas of responsibility is the US Constitution.

so post the article and section




The policy is there, as stated.

so post the policy


Pelosi violated that policy ... the link is there.

well then draw it out, explain exactly what statements or actions violated the laws you are accusing her of breaking.

And then prove that you actually know she commited those actions or spoke those words.

Burden of proof is on you.

[Birdzeye]

I've dismissed only your cheesy attempts to deflect from answering the topic. You've been everywhere in your posts except that you have YET to defend Pelosi's actions on their own merit.

The only one resurrecting shit here is YOU. I surely didn't drag up some 10+ years old bullshit as an attempt to deflect from the topic. YOU did.

The problem here is you've been had and just can't accept the fact. Your third-grade level debate style has been exposed for what it is, and you the petty partisan hack tapdancing all over the place for what you are.

And when all that failed you went to personal insults. Hoep you don't think I was surprised.

You have provided NO evidence that Pelosi broke any laws You have yet to provide any credible evidence to the contrary, only the talking points that come out of right wing spin machines.

So yes, YOU are resurrecting shit because you refuse to recognize that you are thee one with no arguments, because you are trying desperately to keep alive a "story" that has, thus far, no evidence to back up the serious allegations being made - and repeated, again without evidence. Instead, you resort to petty insults, and accuse ME of doing so. You have no standing to accuse others of insults, since you do it all the time.

[typomaniac]

You have provided NO evidence that Pelosi broke any laws You have yet to provide any credible evidence to the contrary, only the talking points that come out of right wing spin machines.

So yes, YOU are resurrecting shit because you refuse to recognize that you are thee one with no arguments, because you are trying desperately to keep alive a "story" that has, thus far, no evidence to back up the serious allegations being made - and repeated, again without evidence. Instead, you resort to petty insults, and accuse ME of doing so. You have no standing to accuse others of insults, since you do it all the time.Well, at least you have to give him credit for not bringing up religion or Ted Kennedy. :laugh2:

[Gunny]

so post the law



so post the article and section





so post the policy



well then draw it out, explain exactly what statements or actions violated the laws you are accusing her of breaking.

And then prove that you actually know she commited those actions or spoke those words.

Burden of proof is on you.

Absurd. I have neither the time nor inclination to play a game of dishonest semantics with you.

I made my argument and presented the evidence. More than once. Endof story. You're toast. CYA.

[loosecannon]

Absurd. I have neither the time nor inclination to play a game of dishonest semantics with you.

You mean you have no time or interest in actually demonstrating your assertions.

IOW you are blowing smoke.


I made my argument and presented the evidence. More than once. Endof story. You're toast. CYA.

Your "argument" was vacuous and only demonstrated that you have an opinion.

You can't apply your vague standard of ethics to another based just on an opinion. Well you can, but that makes it a mere opinion. In this case an unfounded one.

[Gunny]

You mean you have no time or interest in actually demonstrating your assertions.

IOW you are blowing smoke.



Your "argument" was vacuous and only demonstrated that you have an opinion.

You can't apply your vague standard of ethics to another based just on an opinion. Well you can, but that makes it a mere opinion. In this case an unfounded one.

Whatever dude. My argument was made and backed up. You have the same problem as your buddy up there .... not a leg to stand on so you want to try and deflect to playing bullshit semantics.

I made the allegations, and provided the evidence. You say they are wrong. The burden of proof is on YOU to refute them with something more than an op-ed.

[Samantha]

It's a non-story, made up by the RNC to make her look bad. She didn't do anything wrong. She did what other congress-people do all the time. Republicans went a week before her. No one said a word.

This is just another swift boat dishonest smear campaign of lies.

It's the RNC's M.O.

[typomaniac]

Absurd. I have neither the time nor inclination to play a game of dishonest semantics with you.

I made my argument and presented the evidence. More than once. Endof story. You're toast. CYA.Someone more "patriotic" than I am might say that those words represent a cut-and-run tactic. :coffee:

[Gunny]

Someone more "patriotic" than I am might say that those words represent a cut-and-run tactic. :coffee:

How is that? Are you basing that on my last post not having read any other?

How many times do I have to post the same thing, get "uh uh" and a demand for what's already been posted as a response before it gets a bit tiresome?

So far, in response to my statements, all I have gotten is defelctions all over the place and an attempted game of semantics. Simple request:

Can anyone justify Pelosi's behavior on its own merit?

How many times do have to post that to deafening silence as a response?

[Gunny]

It's a non-story, made up by the RNC to make her look bad. She didn't do anything wrong. She did what other congress-people do all the time. Republicans went a week before her. No one said a word.

This is just another swift boat dishonest smear campaign of lies.

It's the RNC's M.O.

There, there. It'll be okay. Just stick your head back in the sand and the truth will quit doing those bad things to you.

[Birdzeye]

Absurd. I have neither the time nor inclination to play a game of dishonest semantics with you.

But you play that game so well!


I made my argument and presented the evidence. More than once. Endof story. You're toast. CYA.

Repeating the same unproven allegations over and over again doesn't make your position any stronger.

[Birdzeye]

There, there. It'll be okay. Just stick your head back in the sand and the truth will quit doing those bad things to you.

Hey, guys, Gunny has just admitted that he has no argument!!!!!

:coffee:

[loosecannon]

I made the allegations, and provided the evidence. You say they are wrong. The burden of proof is on YOU to refute them with something more than an op-ed.

This is what is called an admission of defeat.

YOU made allegations but you refuse to back them up. The burden of proof is on you, not on Pelosi or on me.

YOU have to prove your case.

Put up or shut up.

[glockmail]

where, upthread, read the thread

specific enough, yes, you keep dodging it
Keep dodging what?

[Birdzeye]

This is what is called an admission of defeat.

YOU made allegations but you refuse to back them up. The burden of proof is on you, not on Pelosi or on me.

YOU have to prove your case.

Put up or shut up.

:clap:

[Gunny]

But you play that game so well!



Repeating the same unproven allegations over and over again doesn't make your position any stronger.

You libs wonder why no one puts up with your bullshit? The fucking evidence is THERE. Posted more than once. You can pretend to not see it all you want, and it'll STILL be there.

And don't be jealous of loosecannon because he has graduated from defelction to dishonest semantics and you have not.

My statements have been clear, straight-up, and based on the actual event. Not newt gingrich and the unreasonable dmeand to provide eyewitness coverage to a conversation.

Y'all can either debate or go suck eggs, but so far you haven't proven shit but what a bunch of dishonest, backhanded fucknuts y'all are.

[glockmail]

This is what is called an admission of defeat.

.... . I think he has a point. Why not dispute the evidence that he presented?

[loosecannon]

Can anyone justify Pelosi's behavior on its own merit?



Pelosi doesn't have to justify her behavior. She is innocent until proven guilty.

If you can't prove your allegations, ad you can't, then you are just blowing smoke.

You lose. Thanks for playing.

[Samantha]

Hey, guys, Gunny has just admitted that he has no argument!!!!!

:coffee:LOL! Is that what that was? I had no idea what he was talking about.

[glockmail]

You libs wonder why no one puts up with your bulls....? ...... This crew don't have a clue.

[Gunny]

This is what is called an admission of defeat.

YOU made allegations but you refuse to back them up. The burden of proof is on you, not on Pelosi or on me.

YOU have to prove your case.

Put up or shut up.

I put up already jackass. Learn to debate honestly or go fuck yourself.

As far as admission of defeat goes, I've so far handed you and birdbrain your dishonest little asses. But you keep thinking because a a few of you can parrot each other and there's only one of me that it somehow makes it different.

[Gunny]

Hey, guys, Gunny has just admitted that he has no argument!!!!!

:coffee:

Actually, I think I've made it pretty clear you are either a liar, stupid, or both.

[loosecannon]

The fucking evidence is THERE. Posted more than once.

But it isn't THERE.

Which is why I am trying to walk you thru it.

1 make an allegation
2demo what impropriety exists to violate
3show that it was violated
4substantiate your evidence that it was violated

Burden of proof is on you and you have presented NOTHING

[Gunny]

LOL! Is that what that was? I had no idea what he was talking about.

You never do, oh recording of the leftwingnut handbook.

[loosecannon]

I put up already jackass. Learn to debate honestly or go fuck yourself.

As far as admission of defeat goes, I've so far handed you and birdbrain your dishonest little asses. But you keep thinking because a a few of you can parrot each other and there's only one of me that it somehow makes it different.

You can't even reach my ass Gunny, and you haven't presented even a shred of an argument to support your vacuous allegations.

[Gunny]

But it isn't THERE.

Which is why I am trying to walk you thru it.

1 make an allegation
2demo what impropriety exists to violate
3show that it was violated
4substantiate your evidence that it was violated

Burden of proof is on you and you have presented NOTHING

It's there. Pull your head out of your ass and look. Not that it will do you any good with all the shit for brains you have, but you can try.

[Gunny]

You can't even reach my ass Gunny, and you haven't presented even a shred of an argument to support your vacuous allegations.

Sure I have, loser. Why don't you just admit you're nothing but an ignorant troll who couldn't debate his way off romper room and be done with it?

[Samantha]

Here is the evidence and proof of a lost argument. A long run of insults spewed out in every direction like a madman. :laugh2: :salute:
Actually, I think I've made it pretty clear you are either a liar, stupid, or both.


You never do, oh recording of the leftwingnut handbook.


I put up already jackass. Learn to debate honestly or go fuck yourself.

As far as admission of defeat goes, I've so far handed you and birdbrain your dishonest little asses. But you keep thinking because a a few of you can parrot each other and there's only one of me that it somehow makes it different.

[Gunny]

Here is the evidence and proof of a lost argument. A long run of insults spewed out in every direction like a madman. :laugh2: :salute:

Right. The evidence of a lost libtard argument is turning a debate into a carnival sideshow thinking that ganging up and out-shouting one person is going to change the fact that you're wrong.

[loosecannon]

It's there. Pull your head out of your ass and look. Not that it will do you any good with all the shit for brains you have, but you can try.

If it THERE, then post it.

If you can't post it, you lose.

Game, set, match

[loosecannon]

Sure I have, loser. Why don't you just admit you're nothing but an ignorant troll who couldn't debate his way off romper room and be done with it?

Gunny, put up or shut up.

Prove your case, or lose.

[Birdzeye]

Right. The evidence of a lost libtard argument is turning a debate into a carnival sideshow thinking that ganging up and out-shouting one person is going to change the fact that you're wrong.

Well, if it's a matter of "fact" that we're wrong, why don't you provide some credible evidence instead of empty insults, for a change?

[Samantha]

I looked back over the thread a bit to find Gunny's mysterious proof and I couldn't find it.

Gunny, if you're telling the truth, would you link us to the post that proves Nancy Pelosi broke the law, please?

If you don't, we'll just have to face the fact that you're full of shit.

[Gunny]

I looked back over the thread a bit to find Gunny's mysterious proof and I couldn't find it.

Gunny, if you're telling the truth, would you link us to the post that proves Nancy Pelosi broke the law, please?

If you don't, we'll just have to face the fact that you're full of shit.

You probably won't find a post where I proved Pelosi broke the law since you also won't find a post where I alleged that she broke the law.

Perhaps if y'all would learn to read English instead of getting pre-libtard-programmed pops in your skull, you could get it right.

[Gunny]

Gunny, put up or shut up.

Prove your case, or lose.

It's there. Proven. You know it. You responded to it. I put up, and you can't do anything but play games and tapdance, so you can shut up.

[Birdzeye]

I looked back over the thread a bit to find Gunny's mysterious proof and I couldn't find it.

Gunny, if you're telling the truth, would you link us to the post that proves Nancy Pelosi broke the law, please?

If you don't, we'll just have to face the fact that you're full of shit.

I looked too. Nada. Nichts. Zilch. Just a torrent of empty insults from Gunny.

[Gunny]

I looked too. Nada. Nichts. Zilch. Just a torrent of empty insults from Gunny.

Y'all DO have a penchant for not seeing what you don't want to.:laugh2:

[Gunny]

For all the blind folk on the board. That would be post # 350.


GMAFB. Now you want to caveat with some bullshit parameters of your choosing? I don't have to prove her words did shit. Her actions speak for themselves, and it is THEY that prove my argument.

You can also try all you want to find where I stated Pelosi was prohibited from going to Syria but you'll just come up the same as your argument ... empty. I'm not going to try and prove a stance I have not taken.

Let's do this so that even a third grader like you can understand ...

The Constitution of the United States delegates the responsibility for formulating foreign policy to the executive branch, not the legislative branch.

The President's current foreign ploicy concerning negotiations with Syria is that there will be none until Syria closes its borders.

Now here's your own liberal rag reporting what Pelosi and Assad discussed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040401351.html

If it looks, smells, and sound like negotiating, guess WTF it is ......

Is it the Speaker of the House's position in government to negotiate foreign affairs for the executive branch? No it is not.

If you cannot see that for unethical behavior since everything is there but pics of pelosi and assad in bed together, then you're just an idiot.

[Samantha]

You probably won't find a post where I proved Pelosi broke the law since you also won't find a post where I alleged that she broke the law.

Perhaps if y'all would learn to read English instead of getting pre-libtard-programmed pops in your skull, you could get it right.Oh OK, I misunderstood, I thought we were discussing the thread topic.

So all that proof you say is there, is proof that you are full of shit?

You keep referring to the proof, and that's the only thing that's been proven, as far as I can see.

[Gunny]

Oh OK, I misunderstood, I thought we were discussing the thread topic.

So all that proof you say is there, is proof that you are full of shit?

You keep referring to the proof, and that's the only thing that's been proven, as far as I can see.

Try looking up one post before letting your mouth flat outrun your mind any further.

[Gunny]

Since someone is too stupid to look up the Constitution on his own ...

Article II, Section 3, Clause 3:

Clause 3: Receiving foreign representatives
The President receives all foreign Ambassadors. This clause of the Constitution, among others, has been interpreted to imply that the President has broad power over all matters of foreign policy.

As further defined by:

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936), characterized the President as the "sole organ of the nation in its external relations."

[Samantha]

OK so you say Pelosi is unethical for doing what congresspeople and Senators do all the time?

She didn't go against any of the Bush admin's policies, in fact she reinforced them with Assad.

Are the Republican congressmen who met with Assad a week before Nancy went also unethical?

How do you feel about what Hastert did?


In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.”

…a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.” http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/04/hastert-colombia/

[Birdzeye]

Try looking up one post before letting your mouth flat outrun your mind any further.

Why don't you take your own advice and provide some evidence instead of some factoid that leaves people wondering how relevant that is?

[Gunny]

OK so you say Pelosi is unethical for doing what congresspeople and Senators do all the time?

She didn't go against any of the Bush admin's policies, in fact she reinforced them with Assad.

Are the Republican congressmen who met with Assad a week before Nancy went also unethical?

How do you feel about what Hastert did?

I see. So you want to play the same deflection game. I don't know "what Hastert did" that you are referring to.

I have already stated that my opinion on the matter is the same for Republicans who do it, as it is Pelosi doing it. It is also my already stated opinion that Pelosi should be held to a higher standard since she holds the higher position.

It seems your opinion that Pelosi only reinforced the Bush Administrations policies is held only by those on the left. In fact, if you bothered to look at the linked reference, it states that she specifically discussed foreign policy with Assad wich is in the purview of the Executive branch, not the legislative one.

[Gunny]

If in fact Hastert did what is alleged at the link you provided, then he was wrong in doing so, and his conduct was unethical, IMO.

[Birdzeye]

Oh, so bringing up what Hastert did is also deflection? :lame2:

[Gunny]

Why don't you take your own advice and provide some evidence instead of some factoid that leaves people wondering how relevant that is?

I've posted plenty. You've posted one link, to some site irrelevant to thsi discussion. Now run along and play.

[Gunny]

Oh, so bringing up what Hastert did is also deflection? :lame2:

Obviously you should close your mouth and open your eyes, huh?

It is however, irrelevant to this discussion. Want to discuss Gingrich? Start a new thread. Want to discuss Hastert, start a new thread. This one's about Pelosi and your continued, vain attempts to try and show me as something I am clearly not.

[Birdzeye]

Obviously you should close your mouth and open your eyes, huh?

Maybe you should take your own advice. Now please explain how what Hastert did is irrelevant. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.” Please provide evidence that Pelosi encouraged Syrian officials to bypass Bush?

It's put up or shut up time for you.

[Gunny]

Maybe you should take your own advice. Now please explain how what Hastert did is irrelevant. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.” Please provide evidence that Pelosi encouraged Syrian officials to bypass Bush?

It's put up or shut up time for you.

Why don't you try scrolling up where just for the sake of peace I commented on Hastert?

He is irrelevant to this thread because the thread isn't about him. Get it? Obviously not.

I don't need to provide evidence that Pelosi encouraged Syria to bypass since I never made the allegation. That's some twisted conclusion YOU have come to all on your own.

And I've put up quite nicely all through this thread. You on the other hand have acted just like the bird in your avatar when let out of its cage iside a house fluttering all over the place and shitting everywhere.

[Roomy]

I was almost feeling sorry for Gunny, but he looks to be enjoying himself playing with the liberals all on his own.:salute:

[Gunny]

I was almost feeling sorry for Gunny, but he looks to be enjoying himself playing with the liberals all on his own.:salute:

Feeling sorry for ME? Just watch out for the swinging blade, buddy!:death:

[Samantha]

If in fact Hastert did what is alleged at the link you provided, then he was wrong in doing so, and his conduct was unethical, IMO.Well you've just climbed up a notch in my book. Cheers for this.

Hastert did something much worse than Pelosi did, by trying to go around the President in dealing with Columbia.

Pelosi didn't do anything of the sort. She abided by the Bush admin policy in talking to Assad.

[Gunny]

Well you've just climbed up a notch in my book. Cheers for this.

Hastert did something much worse than Pelosi did, by trying to go around the President in dealing with Columbia.

Pelosi didn't do anything of the sort. She abided by the Bush admin policy in talking to Assad.

I don't know that she did or did not support Bush's ME policies. She did not support Bush's policy of not negotiating with Syrai until it met certain criteria. That goes for her and anyone with her, or anyone else that does it without the President's approval or a change in stated foreign policy.

The Constitution states that the President will receive ALL foreign representatives. That also is in Article II. Had a foreign head of state gone directly to Congress it would have been in violation of Article II of the Constitution.

[glockmail]

....The Constitution states that the President will receive ALL foreign representatives. That also is in Article II. .... Where in Article II?

[loosecannon]

I don't know that she did or did not support Bush's ME policies. She did not support Bush's policy of not negotiating with Syrai until it met certain criteria.


But you have zero reason to even project that Pelosi negotiated at all.

Do you know what negotiation means?

Every conversation is not a negotiation.

It is a loooong stretch to think Pelosi negotiated once you read what it means.

"Definitions of negotiation on the Web:

a discussion intended to produce an agreement; "the buyout negotiation lasted several days"; "they disagreed but kept an open dialogue"; "talks between Israelis and Palestinians"
the activity or business of negotiating an agreement; coming to terms
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Negotiation is the process whereby interested parties resolve disputes, agree upon courses of action, bargain for individual or collective advantage, and/or attempt to craft outcomes which serve their mutual interests. It is usually regarded as a form of alternative dispute resolution. "

What agreement was Pelosi supposedly trying to reach with the syrian pres??

[loosecannon]

The Constitution states that the President will receive ALL foreign representatives.

Two things, the Syrian pres didn't come here to be received.

But the main point is that Nancy pelosi did not make overtures to be a representative of the US. She represented her position as Speaker, not the nation as a whole.

Therefore she was not a representative of the US.

The constitution would never declare that to be wrong or improper

[Dilloduck]

Two things, the Syrian pres didn't come here to be received.

But the main point is that Nancy pelosi did not make overtures to be a representative of the US. She represented her position as Speaker, not the nation as a whole.

Therefore she was not a representative of the US.

The constitution would never declare that to be wrong or improper

Agreed--it was just plain stupid.

[Gunny]

Where in Article II?

Section 3 Clause 3

[Gunny]

But you have zero reason to even project that Pelosi negotiated at all.


Do you know what negotiation means?

Every conversation is not a negotiation.

It is a loooong stretch to think Pelosi negotiated once you read what it means.

"Definitions of negotiation on the Web:

a discussion intended to produce an agreement; "the buyout negotiation lasted several days"; "they disagreed but kept an open dialogue"; "talks between Israelis and Palestinians"
the activity or business of negotiating an agreement; coming to terms
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Negotiation is the process whereby interested parties resolve disputes, agree upon courses of action, bargain for individual or collective advantage, and/or attempt to craft outcomes which serve their mutual interests. It is usually regarded as a form of alternative dispute resolution. "

What agreement was Pelosi supposedly trying to reach with the syrian pres??

Like I said, you're all about semantics. You can use whatever word you want. Negotiate, discussed, talked to, communicated with. Section 3 Clause 3 and the legal precedent previously posted are pretty clear.

She was out of bounds.

[loosecannon]

Section 3 Clause 3


Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.



he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers

Nothing about exclusive rights or responsibilities in that phrase. Nothing about him declaring that the speaker can't visit a foreign leader.

So how does that clause in the constitution help you to assert that pelosi did the bad thing in Syria, and what exactly is your accusation?

[Gunny]

Two things, the Syrian pres didn't come here to be received.

But the main point is that Nancy pelosi did not make overtures to be a representative of the US. She represented her position as Speaker, not the nation as a whole.

Therefore she was not a representative of the US.

The constitution would never declare that to be wrong or improper

More word games. Literalize all you want. The intent is clear.

The line about her representing her position as speaker and not a representative of the US is just pure bullshit, dihonest literalization.

What part aren't you getting that I'm not buying any of your bullshit, dishonest liberal literalist misrepresentations?

You don't have a leg to stand on and your desperation is showing.

[loosecannon]

Like I said, you're all about semantics. You can use whatever word you want. Negotiate, discussed, talked to, communicated with. Section 3 Clause 3 and the legal precedent previously posted are pretty clear.

She was out of bounds.


It is ALL ABOUT thew definitions of words Gunny.

She didn't negotiate because BY DEFINITION negotiate MEANS seek to make agreements.

And for her to seek to make binding agreements on behalf of the US she would have to be REPRESENTING the US, which she wasn't.

You have nothing but hot air.

She neither negotiated, nor spoke on behalf of the US or the Pres, or the PM of Israel.

You lose.

[loosecannon]

The line about her representing her position as speaker and not a representative of the US is just pure bullshit, dihonest literalization.



The line about her not representing the US means EVERYTHING.

Gunny it is becoming abundantly clear that you really have nowhere near the intellect to understand the way law works.

If you can't spell out your accusation, show the words in an authoritative instrument that make it ILLEGAL, and then show that she DID the illegal thing you posted you have nothing but hot air.

Why don't you just admit that all you have is your uneducated POV and drop it.

[Gunny]

It is ALL ABOUT thew definitions of words Gunny.

She didn't negotiate because BY DEFINITION negotiate MEANS seek to make agreements.

And for her to seek to make binding agreements on behalf of the US she would have to be REPRESENTING the US, which she wasn't.

You have nothing but hot air.

She neither negotiated, nor spoke on behalf of the US or the Pres, or the PM of Israel.

You lose.

The loser here is you. You're just too dumb to get it. When you have to resort to the dishonest bullshit you have thinking anyone but other lame-o's such as yourself are buying it, you've already lost.

Pelosi was not appointed by the executive branch to act on its behalf in any negotiations, dialogue, or anything else with any foreign government.

The speaker of the house has no business presuming to carry out the duties of the executive branch.

[Birdzeye]

The line about her not representing the US means EVERYTHING.

Gunny it is becoming abundantly clear that you really have nowhere near the intellect to understand the way law works.

If you can't spell out your accusation, show the words in an authoritative instrument that make it ILLEGAL, and then show that she DID the illegal thing you posted you have nothing but hot air.

Why don't you just admit that all you have is your uneducated POV and drop it.

:clap:

[Gunny]

The line about her not representing the US means EVERYTHING.

Gunny it is becoming abundantly clear that you really have nowhere near the intellect to understand the way law works.

If you can't spell out your accusation, show the words in an authoritative instrument that make it ILLEGAL, and then show that she DID the illegal thing you posted you have nothing but hot air.

Why don't you just admit that all you have is your uneducated POV and drop it.

It's quite clear you are just another liberal that uses dishonest relativism to try and win an argument.

As far as understanding goes, if you don't posess the intellect to red simple English and get the accusation right, then I can easily see why you've had your ass handed to you.

I didn't say anything she did was illegal.

[Gunny]

:clap:

And look, your parakeet is here.:fu:

[Samantha]

I didn't say anything she did was illegal.And that's why it's a non-issue, a non-story.

[loosecannon]

It's quite clear you are just another liberal that uses dishonest relativism to try and win an argument.

As far as understanding goes, if you don't posess the intellect to red simple English and get the accusation right, then I can easily see why you've had your ass handed to you.

I didn't say anything she did was illegal.


Gunny, I am not even trying to roast your ass because it is becoming very clear that you simply are not smart enough to keep up with the basics.

WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ALLEGING PELOSI DID WRONG???

That is a starting point. If you won't post a clear concise answer to that question I am gonna stop playing nice. And be prepared whatever answer you give will be set in stone.

Give the answer that you are prepared to stand by.

[Gunny]

And that's why it's a non-issue, a non-story.

I disagree. What she did was still wrong.

[Dilloduck]

I disagree. What she did was still wrong.

I'm sticking with stupid but as a side question---Why do her tits stick out of her belly? Plastic surgeon error or just serious sag problems?

[Birdzeye]

I'm sticking with stupid but as a side question---Why do her tits stick out of her belly? Plastic surgeon error or just serious sag problems?

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/sprachlos/speechless-smiley-034.gif

[Samantha]

The funniest part is, someone on this board called me immature today.

THAT'S funny.

[Gunny]

Gunny, I am not even trying to roast your ass because it is becoming very clear that you simply are not smart enough to keep up with the basics.

WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ALLEGING PELOSI DID WRONG???

That is a starting point. If you won't post a clear concise answer to that question I am gonna stop playing nice. And be prepared whatever answer you give will be set in stone.

Give the answer that you are prepared to stand by.

Wake up, chump. I could keep up with your trash in the 6th grade. You are the one who seems incapable of comprehending even the most simple facts.

The President, by law, sets foreign policy for this nation.

The President has stated Syria will not be negotiated with until it meets certain criteria.

The Speaker of the House, outside the bounds of her position as such and outside the purvue of the legislature, took it upon herself to go to Syria and speak -- doesn't matter what about -- to Assad.

She could not have gone as Speaker of the House since the Speaker of the House has no authority in foreign matters.

That you attempt to say she went as anything other than a representative of the US government is ludicrous. She didn't fly on her own dime, nor did she stay at the Damascus Motel 6 and go sightseeing.

She met with a head of state of a foreign nation as a representative of the US gov't. Otherwise, she had no reason to meet Assad, no he her.

That's pretty-damned simple. The trip itself against the President's stated foreign policy is what is unethical.

End of story. You and your parrot cheerleader are boring me.

[Birdzeye]

Oh, well. Still no real answer, just more bluster. *sigh*

[loosecannon]

Wake up, chump. I could keep up with your trash in the 6th grade. You are the one who seems incapable of comprehending even the most simple facts.

The President, by law, sets foreign policy for this nation.

The President has stated Syria will not be negotiated with until it meets certain criteria.

The Speaker of the House, outside the bounds of her position as such and outside the purvue of the legislature, took it upon herself to go to Syria and speak -- doesn't matter what about -- to Assad.

She could not have gone as Speaker of the House since the Speaker of the House has no authority in foreign matters.

That you attempt to say she went as anything other than a representative of the US government is ludicrous. She didn't fly on her own dime, nor did she stay at the Damascus Motel 6 and go sightseeing.

She met with a head of state of a foreign nation as a representative of the US gov't. Otherwise, she had no reason to meet Assad, no he her.

That's pretty-damned simple. The trip itself against the President's stated foreign policy is what is unethical.

End of story. You and your parrot cheerleader are boring me.

The problem is Dummy, that NOWHERE in that long post did you say what you are ACCUSING HER OF DOING THAT YOU FEEL IS WRONG.

Example: Allegation: lying to congress

Example two: Allegation : Speaking as a representative of the US without authorization.

SPELL OUT EXACTLY WHAT YOUR ALLEGATION IS Dummy.

otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

[glockmail]

...

The Constitution states that the President will receive ALL foreign representatives. That also is in Article II. Had a foreign head of state gone directly to Congress it would have been in violation of Article II of the Constitution.


Section 3 Clause 3


...he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers

Doesn't say ALL, or that he can be the only one. Big difference.

[glockmail]

....

WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ALLEGING PELOSI DID WRONG???

.....
Giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

[Gunny]

The problem is Dummy, that NOWHERE in that long post did you say what you are ACCUSING HER OF DOING THAT YOU FEEL IS WRONG.

Example: Allegation: lying to congress

Example two: Allegation : Speaking as a representative of the US without authorization.

SPELL OUT EXACTLY WHAT YOUR ALLEGATION IS Dummy.

otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

You're a fucking dumbass. How many fucking times do I have to say making the trip is what she did wrong? Pull your head out of your ass and clean the shit out of your ears and pay some fucking attention to what's going on instead of thinking about the next insult you think you can use or words you can twist to derail a thread in lieu of a legitimate argument.

I see you've done the same exact thing in the other pelosi thread. Dude, your fetishes are your own problem, but it's no reason to ignore reality because you want to poke the nasty, shrew-faced skank.

[Gunny]

Doesn't say ALL, or that he can be the only one. Big difference.


The President receives all foreign Ambassadors.

That's pretty self-expanatory, and what I cited from memory does not change the context nor intent.

What you attempt to add on, does.

However, it is quite obvious the President has appointed the Secretary of State to perform that function for him.

He has not appointed the Speaker of the House.

[glockmail]

That's pretty self-expanatory, and what I cited from memory does not change the context nor intent.

What you attempt to add on, does.

However, it is quite obvious the President has appointed the Secretary of State to perform that function for him.

He has not appointed the Speaker of the House.

Youre memory has failed you then. Read the passage; it is as I quoted and verified by the copy that I keep with me, together with my St. Joseph card and semi-auto. Don't be so pig headed. Even I'm wrong once in a great while.

[Gunny]

Youre memory has failed you then. Read the passage; it is as I quoted and verified by the copy that I keep with me, together with my St. Joseph card and semi-auto. Don't be so pig headed. Even I'm wrong once in a great while.

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1936/1936_98/

[glockmail]

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1936/1936_98/


Making important distinctions between internal and foreign affairs, Justice Sutherland argued because "the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation," ... I graciously bow to your correct interpretation. http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/petting.gif

[shattered]

I graciously bow to your correct interpretation. http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/petting.gif

Jeezus. Will you two stop it? You're fuckin scaring me.

[Gunny]

Jeezus. Will you two stop it? You're fuckin scaring me.

Oh shut up. Hell, I think he deserves rep for that.:laugh2:

[shattered]

Oh shut up. Hell, I think he deserves rep for that.:laugh2:

I'm not sure I like you anymore.. You're turning all creepy on me.

[Gunny]

I'm not sure I like you anymore.. You're turning all creepy on me.

C'mon ... he admitted he was wrong. Glockmail. You know it had to hurt.

[glockmail]

Oh shut up. Hell, I think he deserves rep for that.:laugh2: Dude, don't be gay. :slap:

[Gunny]

Dude, don't be gay. :slap:

I can take it back if you prefer.:mad:

[shattered]

C'mon ... he admitted he was wrong. Glockmail. You know it had to hurt.

Yeah, but you're being nice to each other in two threads, and...I DON'T LIKE CHANGE. I expect things a certain way, and that's that.

[shattered]

I can take it back if you prefer.:mad:

Ahh. THERE we go!

**swoooooon**

[glockmail]

I'm not sure I like you anymore.. You're turning all creepy on me. Hey, its not like we're asking for a ménage-a trois.

[Gunny]

Ahh. THERE we go!

**swoooooon**

Damn ... my timer didn't go off.

[shattered]

Hey, its not like we're asking for a ménage-a trois.

Not that it will ever be an issue, but..

I.
Don't.
Share.

[glockmail]

I can take it back if you prefer.:mad: This doesn't mean we're going to be taking long, hot showers together.

[glockmail]

Not that it will ever be an issue, but..

I.
Don't.
Share. I thought that I was doing the sharin'. :slap:

[Gunny]

I thought that I was doing the sharin'. :slap:

You thought wrong. I think "Third Wheel" best describes you in this scenario.:laugh2:

[manu1959]

Hey, its not like we're asking for a ménage-a trois.

that would violate my one naked penis in the room at time rule

[shattered]

that would violate my one naked penis in the room at time rule

Thankfully, at least someone has rules.

[Gunny]

Thankfully, at least someone has rules.

Same rule applies here. Looks like **somebody** is SOL.

[manu1959]

Same rule applies here. Looks like **somebody** is SOL.

now 1 naked penis and four breasts....that would work

[shattered]

now 1 naked penis and four breasts....that would work

Not according to MY rules.

[manu1959]

Not according to MY rules.

rules are good.....

[Gunny]

rules are good.....

:lmao:

good answer

[shattered]

:lmao:

good answer

Don't laugh.. At least he didn't think to say "Rules are made to be broken."

[manu1959]

Don't laugh.. At least he didn't think to say "Rules are made to be broken."

oh ... i have broken both our rules at the same time.....

[Abbey Marie]

Shattered, you have saved this thread from being a complete yawn-fest. There are only so many ways and times that Gunny can explain the obvious. For that, I, and all other thinking people, thank you. :clap:

[shattered]

Shattered, you have saved this thread from being a complete yawn-fest. There are only so many ways Gunny can continue to explain the obvious. For that, I, and all other thinking people, thank you. :clap:

Boy, don't I feel special.. And to think he said I threw him to the wolves today.. :salute:

[loosecannon]

How many fucking times do I have to say making the trip is what she did wrong?

Well once would have been enough.

The problem is that there IS nothing wrong with taking a trip.

If you can't understand how exactly that renders your response useless toward condemning Pelosi I don't know how else I can help you.

You erroneously believe I am playing a semantic game with you.

NOTHING could be further from the truth.

But you haven't listed anything that pelosi did that was unethical. NOTHING.

Taking a trip certainly isn't unethical.

So just to help you out: WHY was taking a trip supposedly unethical?

[shattered]

Well once would have been enough.

The problem is that there IS nothing wrong with taking a trip.

If you can't understand how exactly that renders your response useless toward condemning Pelosi I don't know how else I can help you.

You erroneously believe I am playing a semantic game with you.

NOTHING could be further from the truth.

But you haven't listed anything that pelosi did that was unethical. NOTHING.

Taking a trip certainly isn't unethical.

So just to help you out: WHY was taking a trip supposedly unethical?


Go away. You're interrupting my play time.

[loosecannon]

Go away. You're interrupting my play time.

fuck off n die.

[shattered]

fuck off n die.

THEN will you go away? Children should be seen and not heard.

[Gunny]

Well once would have been enough.

The problem is that there IS nothing wrong with taking a trip.

If you can't understand how exactly that renders your response useless toward condemning Pelosi I don't know how else I can help you.

You erroneously believe I am playing a semantic game with you.

NOTHING could be further from the truth.

But you haven't listed anything that pelosi did that was unethical. NOTHING.

Taking a trip certainly isn't unethical.

So just to help you out: WHY was taking a trip supposedly unethical?

And of course this is not playing semantics, right? Since you seem to be at least semi-intelligent in your more lucid moments, why bother insulting my or your intelligence by pretending to not know the answer?

The President says don't do it. She did it. It's outside the purvue of her office and within the purvue of his.

You may think it's cool to declare to the world that your party doesn't give a damn what the President thinks, but IMO, while back-biting each other to death in our own yard is all well and good, we as a Nation, not a political party, should show a united front to the world.

When we do, we're taken seriously and we win. When we don't, we get divided and lose.

[loosecannon]

And of course this is not playing semantics, right? Since you seem to be at least semi-intelligent in your more lucid moments, why bother insulting my or your intelligence by pretending to not know the answer?

The President says don't do it. She did it. It's outside the purvue of her office and within the purvue of his.

You may think it's cool to declare to the world that your party doesn't give a damn what the President thinks, but IMO, while back-biting each other to death in our own yard is all well and good, we as a Nation, not a political party, should show a united front to the world.

When we do, we're taken seriously and we win. When we don't, we get divided and lose.


So I was right 15 pages ago, your only reason for believing that Pelosi was "wrong" to take the trip, or that it was "unethical" was because the pres that America wants impeached doesn't like it.

Talk about a partisan crutch.

Well as long as Pelosi was within the law it is simply none of dear leaders business. His opinion doesn't count unless Pelosi negotiates, or represents the whole USA.

Which she didn't.

You have no case, the burden of proof is unfullfilled, you have just your uninformed opinion, which quite frankly, won't buy a cup of joe.

Just because you and your dear leader don't like it does not make it unethical, unless of course one of you two is actually God.

[loosecannon]

THEN will you go away? Children should be seen and not heard.

so shut your trap and pose.

[shattered]

so shut your trap and pose.

Oooh. That was actually pretty good for a brainless ass.

[manu1959]

So I was right 15 pages ago, your only reason for believing that Pelosi was "wrong" to take the trip, or that it was "unethical" was because the pres that America wants impeached doesn't like it.

Talk about a partisan crutch.

Well as long as Pelosi was within the law it is simply none of dear leaders business. His opinion doesn't count unless Pelosi negotiates, or represents the whole USA.

Which she didn't.

You have no case, the burden of proof is unfullfilled, you have just your uninformed opinion, which quite frankly, won't buy a cup of joe.

Just because you and your dear leader don't like it does not make it unethical, unless of course one of you two is actually God.

she said in her interview just the other day that she had set her differences aside and had put forth the same posistion as the pres

[Yurt]

So I was right 15 pages ago, your only reason for believing that Pelosi was "wrong" to take the trip, or that it was "unethical" was because the pres that America wants impeached doesn't like it.

Talk about a partisan crutch.

Well as long as Pelosi was within the law it is simply none of dear leaders business. His opinion doesn't count unless Pelosi negotiates, or represents the whole USA.

Which she didn't.

You have no case, the burden of proof is unfullfilled, you have just your uninformed opinion, which quite frankly, won't buy a cup of joe.

Just because you and your dear leader don't like it does not make it unethical, unless of course one of you two is actually God.


He is YOUR leader too. You may not like it, but he is. And just because you say "america" wants him impeached, does not make it so. You are so full of it. You only think something is right if it fits your small perverted view of the world.

I still you still have not answered my post:

scared? (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=37113&postcount=13)

Nah, it is because if you do, your little world will crumble around you and you will start sobbing uncontrollably.

[Gunny]

So I was right 15 pages ago, your only reason for believing that Pelosi was "wrong" to take the trip, or that it was "unethical" was because the pres that America wants impeached doesn't like it.

Nobody wants him impeached but the loony left. I

Talk about a partisan crutch.

Nothing partisan about it. You're fishing. I apply the same standards to Republicans who do it, and I applied the same standard on th especific instance of Hastert doing it.

Your allegation of partisanship is belied by the facts.

Well as long as Pelosi was within the law it is simply none of dear leaders business. His opinion doesn't count unless Pelosi negotiates, or represents the whole USA.

Which she didn't.

Yes she did. You claiming she didn't is intellectually dishonest. She went over as Speaker of the House. Speaker of the House has no authority to do so.

You have no case, the burden of proof is unfullfilled, you have just your uninformed opinion, which quite frankly, won't buy a cup of joe.

Just because you and your dear leader don't like it does not make it unethical, unless of course one of you two is actually God.

You're grasping for straws. All you've done is double-talk, misrepresent the truth and completely ignore the facts, not to mention your false allegations above.

My burden of proof is MORE than filled. You have yet to refute it.

I will also point out that according to the Constitution, if the President doesn't like it and wants to make an issue of it, he CAN bring her before the house ethics committee. As if putting her in front of her fan club would do any good.

[loosecannon]

You're grasping for straws. All you've done is double-talk, misrepresent the truth and completely ignore the facts, not to mention your false allegations above.

My burden of proof is MORE than filled. You have yet to refute it.

I will also point out that according to the Constitution, if the President doesn't like it and wants to make an issue of it, he CAN bring her before the house ethics committee. As if putting her in front of her fan club would do any good.

You lose Gunny, she broke no law, she doesn't need authority to do something that breaks no law. You have zero except your uninformed opinion.

You may really believe that the case you presented amounts to something. In which case i apologize but it doesn't. You do not appear to be smart enough to grasp the concept of law, breaking it or not and ethics.

Your mere opinion doesn't make something wrong.

or unethical

or illegal.

There are standards of proof for each and you didn't even begin to meet them.

Your whole schtick is based on pure opinion. Nothing more.

You seem sincere enough, but you really do not appear to get it.

Pelosi did nothing wrong.

Unless you can prove she did, you lose.

[Gunny]

You lose Gunny, she broke no law, she doesn't need authority to do something that breaks no law. You have zero except your uninformed opinion.

You may really believe that the case you presented amounts to something. In which case i apologize but it doesn't. You do not appear to be smart enough to grasp the concept of law, breaking it or not and ethics.

Your mere opinion doesn't make something wrong.

or unethical

or illegal.

There are standards of proof for each and you didn't even begin to meet them.

Your whole schtick is based on pure opinion. Nothing more.

You seem sincere enough, but you really do not appear to get it.

Pelosi did nothing wrong.

Unless you can prove she did, you lose.

I already proved, by any standard of proof, so I'm afraid it is you who has lost. Pages ago. You just refuse to give it up.

[loosecannon]

I already proved, by any standard of proof, so I'm afraid it is you who has lost. Pages ago. You just refuse to give it up.

I am sorry Gunny, but you proved absolutely nothing.

You offered your opinion without an explanation even of how you thought that the anecdotes you listed amounted to anything.

You seem sincere, but without a clue.

It is not semantics, it is a sequence of reasoning that you entirely failed to present.

The mere fact that you and bush say you believe that Pelosi "represented" the US means nothing unless you can match her words/actions to the definition of the word "represented".

Lemme give you an example.

Manu accuses you of being unethical because you lied about him having sex with goats.

You say "I never said you had sex with goats, but you told me yourself that you did so it wouldn't have been a lie".

OK, Manu's accusation would be that you lied.

In order for this accusation to be true, not just his baseless opinion, he would have to prove that

A) he didn't have sex with goats

and

B) that you actually lied vs just being wrong when you said that he did have sex with goats.

The definition matters.

Suppose you misunderstood a comment he made and you assumed that it implied he was in fact banging goats.

that wouldn't be a lie, it would be a misunderstanding.

OK, so you haven't proven that Pelosi had sex with goats.

Or whatever your allegation is.

If you want to allege that pelosi did something wrong, define wrong.

If you want to prove she did something unethical, prove unethical beginning with a definition of unethical.

To prove a driver is drunk you need a definition of "drunk", then you have to prove he was a driver, as in driving while he was drunk.

can you do that?

What are your allegations against pelosi?

Can you prove she did what you say she did?

Can you prove by definitions that what you say is the same as what she did?

Because if you can't you are just making accusations that you can't prove.

Nothing but baseless opinions.

[Gunny]

I am sorry Gunny, but you proved absolutely nothing.

You offered your opinion without an explanation even of how you thought that the anecdotes you listed amounted to anything.

You seem sincere, but without a clue.

It is not semantics, it is a sequence of reasoning that you entirely failed to present.

The mere fact that you and bush say you believe that Pelosi "represented" the US means nothing unless you can match her words/actions to the definition of the word "represented".

Lemme give you an example.

Manu accuses you of being unethical because you lied about him having sex with goats.

You say "I never said you had sex with goats, but you told me yourself that you did so it wouldn't have been a lie".

OK, Manu's accusation would be that you lied.

In order for this accusation to be true, not just his baseless opinion, he would have to prove that

A) he didn't have sex with goats

and

B) that you actually lied vs just being wrong when you said that he did have sex with goats.

The definition matters.

Suppose you misunderstood a comment he made and you assumed that it implied he was in fact banging goats.

that wouldn't be a lie, it would be a misunderstanding.

OK, so you haven't proven that Pelosi had sex with goats.

Or whatever your allegation is.

If you want to allege that pelosi did something wrong, define wrong.

If you want to prove she did something unethical, prove unethical beginning with a definition of unethical.

To prove a driver is drunk you need a definition of "drunk", then you have to prove he was a driver, as in driving while he was drunk.

can you do that?

What are your allegations against pelosi?

Can you prove she did what you say she did?

Can you prove by definitions that what you say is the same as what she did?

Because if you can't you are just making accusations that you can't prove.

Nothing but baseless opinions.

Every question you ask here has already been answered, more than once. Feel free to scroll back and look. This isn't a you keep posting the same questions and I post the same answers and you'll somehow come out right on the 50th try thing.

It's done. I made my point. You have not made yours. I have better things to do. Perhaps next time I have bronchitis we cna spend a whole day doing it again sometime.

[gabosaurus]

Is this why we still have major corporations doing business with Iran?
I love all this Pelosi bashing. You just had that a woman has power.

[stephanie]

Is this why we still have major corporations doing business with Iran?
I love all this Pelosi bashing. You just had that a woman has power.


Where have you been Gabs....

Your own Bj Clinton had women in power..

And so does President Bush...

Catch up dear girl...your sounding a little dumb right now...:poke:

[glockmail]

Dude, don't be gay. :slap: Typo neg rep's me for that?

[shattered]

Maybe he's gay, and found it offensive.

[Gunny]

Typo neg rep's me for that?


Was that for 1 point, or 2?:laugh2:

[loosecannon]

It's done. I made my point. You have not made yours. I have better things to do. Perhaps next time I have bronchitis we cna spend a whole day doing it again sometime.

Dear Gunny, the only points you have made are that Both you and Bush didn't want Pelosi to go to Syria.

When she did you two got mad and called her "unethical'.

That's it.

I have nothing to prove, you made the allegations, the burden of proof is on you. That's how debate happens.

You lose.

[manu1959]

Is this why we still have major corporations doing business with Iran?
I love all this Pelosi bashing. You just had that a woman has power.

nooooooooooo ... we "had" women that think they have power.....

[Gunny]

Dear Gunny, the only points you have made are that Both you and Bush didn't want Pelosi to go to Syria.

When she did you two got mad and called her "unethical'.

That's it.

I have nothing to prove, you made the allegations, the burden of proof is on you. That's how debate happens.

You lose.

:lmao:

Whatever dude. People can read.

[manu1959]

I have nothing to prove, you made the allegations, the burden of proof is on you. That's how debate happens.



wrong wrong wrong .... she admits negotiating....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?ex=1176609600&en=a49852add6a0cdef&ei=5070

At a televised press conference after their meeting, Ms. Pelosi said that during the talks with Mr. Assad she had “expressed concern about Syria’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas,” and had “expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria.”

[Birdzeye]

wrong wrong wrong .... she admits negotiating....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?ex=1176609600&en=a49852add6a0cdef&ei=5070

At a televised press conference after their meeting, Ms. Pelosi said that during the talks with Mr. Assad she had “expressed concern about Syria’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas,” and had “expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria.”

I guess you have to read between the lines to find her "admission" of "negotiating." :laugh2:

[manu1959]

I guess you have to read between the lines to find her "admission" of "negotiating." :laugh2:

i guess you had to close you eyes not to see it:laugh2:

[loosecannon]

wrong wrong wrong .... she admits negotiating....



Expressing concern IS NOT negotiating.

The very definition of negotiating says you are trying to reach an agreement like a deal or a price or a contract.

Merely sitting around and saying "i am concerned about the war in Iraq" is NOT a negotiation.

It isn't close.

If it was i could interpret Gunny's last post as an attempt to negotiate a price for my computer.

Never mind the fact that Gunny's last post meets none of the requirements of a negotiation. If Gunny's opinion and Bush's opinion see it that way it MUST be true.

That is gunny's case against Pelosi in a nutshell.

Fabricated hot air.

[manu1959]

Expressing concern IS NOT negotiating.

The very definition of negotiating says you are trying to reach an agreement like a deal or a price or a contract.

Merely sitting around and saying "i am concerned about the war in Iraq" is NOT a negotiation.

It isn't close.

If it was i could interpret Gunny's last post as an attempt to negotiate a price for my computer.

Never mind the fact that Gunny's last post meets none of the requirements of a negotiation. If Gunny's opinion and Bush's opinion see it that way it MUST be true.

That is gunny's case against Pelosi in a nutshell.

Fabricated hot air.

you opinion is noted

[Yurt]

loosecannon;38260]Expressing concern IS NOT negotiating.

Would agree that intent counts?




The very definition of negotiating says you are trying to reach an agreement like a deal or a price or a contract.

Merely sitting around and saying "i am concerned about the war in Iraq" is NOT a negotiation.

You are oversimplifying what negotiation is. You know full well that "negotiation" on a global or country to country level is FAR different that what you make it out to be. Unless you really are that simple.

Negotiations between countries can take years. It has nothing at all to do with offer, acceptance and consideration, as you wrongly put it. You are talking about "personal"/global positions, not tangible items. If you are in lawschool, pick up some books and read. For you have no clue.

Let me give you a hypo:

Two companies, A & B, are competitors. The CEO of company A makes a particular stance against company B. Let us say the stance is:

No one talk to that company without my permission because they are actively seeking to undermine this company and make the world buy their product.

The Vice President of the (input here, because we are getting a point across to loosecannon) decides to go and have a talk with company B. She says:

Company B, I am concerned about your operations...............


Are you telling me, that she is NOT, trying to alter company B's course? As such, in business, THAT is a negotiation. She has opened the door by PERSONALLY going to company HQ.

You are simpleton if you can't see it that way. You understand so little. May you learn something from your time on this Board.

Yurt

[manu1959]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070413171900.9mgyitu3&show_article=1

looks like the rest of the world thinks what she did is negotiating...

the statment concerns me....

But Rudaki added that "this willingness does not mean a resumption of political ties with the occupying and bullying US government."

they think there are tow different governments.....like their multiple power bases...